자연주의적 탐구조사(Naturalistic Inquiry)

Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases

Background
Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty.

Objectives
To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions.

Search methods
For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008).

Selection criteria
We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions.

Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were:

A) 'choice made' attributes;

B) 'decision-making process' attributes.

Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model.

Main results
This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each.

Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies).

A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes:

Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13).

B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes:

Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in:

a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18);

b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); and

c) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18).

Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice.

C) Secondary outcomes

Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable.

The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive.

Authors' conclusions
There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values.

New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.

/pdf/decision-aids-for-people-facing-health-treatment-or-1j1706q17l.pdf

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

http://xoomer.virgilio.it/lusebra/NuoviFile/PrevenzioneTVP.pdf

Prevention of venous thromboembolism

25. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. By D. B. Rubin. ISBN 0 471 08705 X. Wiley, Chichester, 1987. 258 pp. £30.25.

Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys

A meta-analysis was undertaken to determine the effects of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis on pain and disability. Seventy-four journal articles met inclusion criteria and were independently reviewed by two readers. On average, 64% of patients treated surgically for lumbar spinal stenosis were re

Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Attempted meta-analysis of the literature.

Objectives. —To determine success and complication rates for lumbar spinal fusion surgery, predictors of good outcomes, and whether fusion improves success rates of laminectomy for specific low back disorders. Data Sources. —English-language journal articles published from 1966 through April 1991, identified through MEDLINE searching ( spinalfusion plus limiting terms), bibliography review, and expert consultation. Study Selection. —Articles were selected only if they reported at least 1 year of follow-up data enabling the classification of clinical outcomes as satisfactory or unsatisfactory for at least 30 patients. Data Extraction. —Two reviewers independently extracted data on patient characteristics, surgical methods, patient outcomes, and quality of study methods. Data Synthesis. —Of 47 articles, there were no randomized trials. Four nonrandomized studies compared surgery with and without fusion for herniated disks; three found no advantage for fusion. On average, 68% of patients had a satisfactory outcome after fusion, but the range was wide (16% to 95%), and the satisfactory outcome rate was lower in prospective than in retrospective studies. The most frequently reported complications were pseudarthrosis (14%) and chronic pain at the bone graft donor site (9%). Clinical outcomes did not differ by diagnosis or fusion technique, but were worse in studies with a greater number of previously operated patients. Conclusions. —For several low back disorders no advantage has been demonstrated for fusion over surgery without fusion, and complications of fusions are common. Randomized controlled trials are needed to compare fusion, surgery without fusion, and nonsurgical treatments in rigorously defined patient groups. ( JAMA . 1992;268:907-911)

Patient Outcomes After Lumbar Spinal Fusions

Importance Efforts to improve end-of-life care have focused primarily on patients with cancer. High-quality end-of-life care is also critical for patients with other illnesses. Objective To compare patterns of end-of-life care and family-rated quality of care for patients dying with different serious illnesses. Design, Setting, and Participants A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted in all 146 inpatient facilities within the Veteran Affairs health system among patients who died in inpatient facilities between October 1, 2009, and September 30, 2012, with clinical diagnoses categorized as end-stage renal disease (ESRD), cancer, cardiopulmonary failure (congestive heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), dementia, frailty, or other conditions. Data analysis was conducted from April 1, 2014, to February 10, 2016. Main Outcomes and Measures Palliative care consultations, do-not-resuscitate orders, death in inpatient hospices, death in the intensive care unit, and family-reported quality of end-of-life care. Results Among 57 753 decedents, approximately half of the patients with ESRD, cardiopulmonary failure, or frailty received palliative care consultations (adjusted proportions, 50.4%, 46.7%, and 43.7%, respectively) vs 73.5% of patients with cancer and 61.4% of patients with dementia ( P P P  = .61), but lower for patients with ESRD, cardiopulmonary failure, or frailty (54.8%, 54.8%, and 53.7%, respectively; all P  ≤ .02 vs patients with cancer). This quality advantage was mediated by palliative care consultation, setting of death, and a code status of do-not-resuscitate; adjustment for these variables rendered the association between diagnosis and overall end-of-life care quality nonsignificant. Conclusions and Relevance Family-reported quality of end-of-life care was significantly better for patients with cancer and those with dementia than for patients with ESRD, cardiopulmonary failure, or frailty, largely owing to higher rates of palliative care consultation and do-not-resuscitate orders and fewer deaths in the intensive care unit among patients with cancer and those with dementia. Increasing access to palliative care and goals of care discussions that address code status and preferred setting of death, particularly for patients with end-organ failure and frailty, may improve the overall quality of end-of-life care for Americans dying of these illnesses.

/pdf/quality-of-end-of-life-care-provided-to-patients-with-1wkkng0o04.pdf

Mary Ersek

Papers

Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. Attempted meta-analysis of the literature.

Patient Outcomes After Lumbar Spinal Fusions

Quality of End-of-Life Care Provided to Patients With Different Serious Illnesses

Surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis

Self-efficacy for managing pain is associated with disability, depression, and pain coping among retirement community residents with chronic pain